The Anglobitch Thesis contends that the brand of feminism that arose in the Anglosphere (the English-speaking world) in the 1960s has an ulterior misandrist (anti-male) agenda quite distinct from its self-proclaimed role as ‘liberator’ of women.

Tuesday, 23 February 2010

Anglobitch debating society in session! Well, sorry to disappoint you all, but the following arguments mustered against the Anglobitch Thesis probably wouldn't trouble a Neanderthal - and a pretty dumb Neanderthal, at that. This blistering critique appears on the following feminist website, run by one 'Tangerine Peach':

Despite this lameness however (of the Internet - RK), there’s also countless awesome stuff you can do of course – one of my favourites include checking out the blogs or articles of my sisters or friends, or interesting feminist opinions from feministing.com or thefword.org.uk. But it is the freedom of speech and sharing of views that is also a problem: because morons who know nothing about a subject can write any old shit about it and post it on the ol’ virtual noticeboard.

Heh, you knew where I was going with this, didn’tcha. Thanks to “Anglobitch” the blogger for providing hilarious views that I could directly quote (NOT out of context)…

“Why Feminism is a failure”, or, “Why We Don’t Need Feminism” and similar articles dot the internet, newspapers, stupid gossip magazines and even TV reports.

Why IS Feminism a “failure”, hmm? I have yet to come across a good argument for this ridiculous view. The main reason is they didn’t convince morons writing such articles because said morons would not ALLOW themselves to be persuaded, because they are ignorant, stupid fuckers who would rather bash everyone else than be part of something positive and potentially society-changing (we hope), something that actually points out the oppressed opinions and cultures, something that sheds light on issues affecting women. Oh that’s right, women don’t matter.

If people are going to be such pleborons, then frankly, we don’t want you in our movement. And they become bitter. And make up arguments like, “Oh, Feminism hasn’t solved world hunger, OMG ITS A FAILUUUREEEEE”.

Well, has it solved world hunger? Yes or no? In fact, has it has any positive effects on Western civilization at all?

Grow up, idiot. Feminism is for equal rights, for the vote, for equal work experiences and opportunities, pro-choice, stopping rape, incest and abuse, for LGBT rights, anti-racism, access to birth control, smooshing the patriarchy, etc. What the fuck is your problem? Because we’re not living in all-female communes and starting from Year Zero we’re not real Feminists? Because some of us still like to wear make-up and dresses (because it looks lovely) we’re not real feminists? Who the fuck is anyone to say what feminism is when they don’t know anything about it?

“[...]enormous damage has been done to the family, to Marriage and other traditional institutions ” – oh, has it? I wasn’t aware that PLANNED families or families where the parents aren’t married or straight were damaged ones.

Well, what all about the single-parent, Welfare-dependent families that are the direct products of feminism?

“Nearly all the Feministing women who post on YouTube are obvious avatars of bourgeois respectability: straight, pearly teeth, carefully applied make-up and costly designer clothes. If these women were truly opposed to the extant social order, they would dress with complete indifference to traditional female standards. Self-evidently, they retain a knee-jerk affinity to the existing social order and its values. Yet this, according to them, is an oppressive patriarchy that militates against their social and emotional well-being.”

Need I even comment on the above?

Yes, it might be a good idea. If these women are so opposed to patriarchy, why do they insist on retaining its trappings? If your stated goal is to 'smoosh the patriarchy', surely its myriad achievements must be 'smooshed', too?

“Moreover, the computers they use, the publishers who print their turgid books, their cosseted university enclaves – are all products of the patriarchy they profess to despise. If they want to reject patriarchy, why do they not jettison their attachment to these creations of ‘oppressive’ patriarchal society? Why not live in feminist communes in the wilderness and ‘start again’ from ‘Year Zero’ like Pol Pot, using an exclusively feminist science and technology?”

This is so stupid it makes me laugh heartilly. This is…. well, utterly ridiculous. I don’t even feel I NEED to say anything against that – I thought it w just plain commical and entertaining enough to throw in there.

It is interesting how this semi-literate feminist actually refuses to comment on my arguments, claiming that my points are 'too ridiculous' to confront. Clearly, feminists dwell in such an insular cocoon of irrational sentiment that they cannot muster rational arguments against coherent thought. One might as well be arguing with an earthworm or centipede, a creature entirely bereft of reason. In short, they give no reasons for what they believe because they have no reasons for what they believe!

The blogger then bashes Jessica Valenti for a bit: “This is not an African-American male maimed in Vietnam living in a trailer on a pittance; this is a hyper-advantaged individual profiteering from hollow rhetoric.”

Because we all know those are exact opposites. Grow the fuck up.

I don't understand this at all. Can someone with a background in psychotherapy please explain what she is trying to say? Or are we back in earthworm/centipede territory?

I’m glad idiots like this haven’t joined (so to speak) feminism.

Me too!

People like that don’t care to know what they cannot scoff at: if they knew what it was really about, if they had bothered their lazy ass to even research it a little bit, they’d realise that what they have written is complete bollocks. Despite providing hilarious reading material, it is also frigging annoying having so-called “educated” people make such decisions.

If it is 'complete bollocks', why are so annoyed about it? More retarded comments from the Anglo-feminist cult of unreason...

If it’s not for you, Fine.

OK. Fine. I'm sure we can all live with that...!

But don’t talk about shit you don’t understand. If you love the internet so much, how about using it for research than bitching on your blog.

AFTER you’ve done research is when you can bitch all you want.

Bleh.

My regular readers are well-acquainted with my research methods, and their intellectual weight.

You don’t say to an African-American, “Hey, slavery has been abolished, why are you still whining about racism???” Just because most white feminists have been to Uni and don’t live in poverty does not mean they cannot care about all women who have been/going through such times. And why only mention the white feminists?

Well, one reason why Anglo-American MRAs tend to focus on white, middle-class feminists is that Anglo feminists are overwhelmingly white and middle-class. And, in the case of Marie Stopes, racist and fascist, to boot.

The Anglobich blog is… awful. If you read the one on gay people in ”anglo-society” you will get mad, trust me.

Don't worry - if you're an Anglo feminist, you're probably mad, anyway. But remember - sanity is just an oppressive patriarchal construct. Well, so is the Internet, not to mention all great works of art, music and literature, science and engineering. Of course, since feminist 'cherry-picking' is in operation, they like to keep those particular 'oppressive patriarchal constructs'.

And there we have it, pure gold. By the way, don't bother posting any comments on this feminist's blog, as she is too cowardly to allow posts. Obviously, 'smooshing the patriarchy' (what patriarchy, the Anglosphere is a misandrist matriarchy, for f**k's sake!) is easier to say than to do...

Friday, 19 February 2010

I recently perused a book lying around the dentist's waiting room. As it seemed to be the work of an Anglo-American woman, I expected the usual farrago of puritanical, 'me, me, me,' misandrist nonsense. However, I was pleasantly surprised to find Debra Ollivier's What French Women Know offered some interesting insights on the Anglobitch phenomenon. The author is an Anglo-American expat female who married and settled in France. This has given her an unusual cross-cultural perspective. For example, she is aware that Anglo feminism is uniquely misandrist:

Though France has always been the land of love, let's not forget that it has also always been the land of sexism. That said, French women never danced on the hot coals of American-style feminism; their feminism burned with less militancy and lacked, as French historian Mona Ozouf saw it, the "unparalleled dimensions and unprecedented ferocity" of its Anglo counterpart. Put in racier terms, journalist Justine De Lacy pointed out in The New York Times during feminism's heyday that "French women, after all, did not exactly remove veils upon liberation; many did remove bras, but this was more in celebration than in protest against the female condition."

Precisely. And so it's come to pass (a turn of phrase that prunes away decades of complicated suffragette culture we simply can't squeeze into these pages) that enjoying the perks of femininity does not implicate French women in a plot to sustain their inadequacy, any more than sharing a deep complicity with men implies an abandonment of power. On the contrary, it tends to imbue them with a particular strength and commonsense wisdom about men that's been obscured in the Sturm und Drang of our gender-conflicted times.

However, her most interesting insight into the Anglobitch phenomenon involves her analysis of Anglo-American feminism's 'homosociality': a deep-embedded puritanical tendency for the sexes to be segregated from earliest childhood, leaving little room for mutual understanding and ultimately leading to an implicitly misandrist form of feminism:

Not long ago my husband saw an American ad for a mainstream cruise line selling Ladies Only cruises that featured a photo of women beaming together in what looked like a tropical paradise. I don't recall the headline, but I do remember my husband asking of the ad: "Are those women happy gay ... or gay gay?" It hardly seemed to matter. The point was that men were out of the picture and these women were overjoyed about it.

Indeed female-bonding industries are blooming all over the country, catering to the desire to keep men out of our hair - and provide welcome relief in the process. "I'd rather spend the evening with my rabbit than go out and deal with men," says Charlotte York in an episode of Sex and the City - and she isn't speaking of a fuzzy bunny. Maureen Dowd's Are Men Necessary? says it all in the title alone.

Think about it: by French standards we Anglos do indeed socialize in great same-sex packs. We have our Ladies Nights, our bachelor parties, and our chick nights; we have our bridesmaids and our grooms and even our ex-wives clubs. We have our sororities and our fraternities (which literally don't exist in France and which, once explained to the baffled French, appear medieval with their feuding same-sex fiefdoms). We have such a stunning array of gender-specinc bars, associations, networks, and groups that 0 magazine headlined a recent article on bar-hopping, ladies-only, tail-guzzling excesses with the alarming question: ARE GIRLS THE NEW GUYS? Talk about a new spin on gender studies.

At a more theoretical level, it seems that serious French thinkers are well aware of this puritanical gender-distinction in Anglo culture:

"Men and women were separated socially in your society," social scientist Alain Giami once elabo¬rated in a phone discussion. "That's a very important historical element that distinguishes Anglo-Saxon culture and French culture. You have much more 'homosociality' in your culture." Let us forgive Giami the unbearably anthropological ring of the word homosociality and consider that he has a point.

Recollecting her own youth and childhood in the United States (presumably in some bourgeois enclave), the author cites many examples of homosociality at work:

...though even in the playgrounds of my youth and during some of feminism's brightest moments, I could recall the enduring seeds of "homosociality" in the way boys and girls were often segregated. (The day we were ushered into the school auditorium with the solemnity of a slightly alarming liturgical rite to watch gender-specific sex education films comes immediately to mind.)

Awareness of homosociality and its potential problems in fact enjoys a long and illustrious history in the francophone world. Many French writers - or expatriate Anglo-Americans viewing the Anglosphere from afar - have long made pithy comments on the effects of Anglo-American puritanism. The rather one-dimensional, blinkered nature of Anglo women is one particularly well-worn topic:

Like Alain Giami, Madame de Stael had a point, and it's interesting to note how that point has been observed by those who followed in her footsteps. A quick sampling of quotes over the centuries:

Alexis de Tocqueville took one good hard look at America's growing colonies and noted: "America is the one country in the world where the most continual care has been taken to trace clearly separated lines of action for the two sexes, and where the wish is for them to walk with equal steps, but always on different paths."

Living in France, Edith Wharton observed her American sisters from afar and offered these harsh words: "It is because American women are each other's only audience, and to a great extent each other's only companions, that they seem, compared to women who play an intellectual and social part in the lives of men, like children in a baby school." (Ouch.)

Of course, the Anglobitch Thesis maintains that Anglo feminism has always been an expression of Anglo values, not any kind of revolt against them. Ollivier's experience strongly confirms this. Most interestingly, the author also links the Anglo 'Princess Cult' to Anglo homosociality:

It's in accepting perfectly imperfect human emotions, with a certain realistic snap to her gait, that the French woman goes into marriage (if she goes into it at all, that is). And because she doesn't live with the enduring belief in Happily Ever After, the French woman also doesn't live under the shadow of its biggest mascot: the princess.

There's no denying that as the largest girl franchise on the planet, the princess is nothing if not spectacular in America. It's equally hard to deny the sagesse in the observations of Peggy Orenstein, who once opined in a New York Times piece ("What's Wrong with Cinderella?") that beyond the happy pink patina something cruel and unhappy looms. "There are no studies proving that playing princess directly damages girls' self-esteem," she writes. "But there is evidence that young women who hold the most conventionally feminine beliefs - who avoid conflict and think they should be perpetually nice and pretty - are more likely to be depressed." Orenstein goes on to describe that emotional axis of evil that snares the princess in the "paralyzing pressure to be 'pert' ...

In short, conditions like anorexia are merely expressions of Anglo puritanism and homosociality, not pathologies as such. Though there are problems with this book - for example, do these concepts apply beyond the French/American upper-middle class? - one cannot but feel that she is 'onto something' in her superficial, feminine way. Ultimately, there can be little doubt that the terrible relations between the sexes across the Anglosphere owe much to the puritanical homosociality at the root of Anglo culture:

Readers, let us bite into the Big Camembert with this: In France men and women actually like one another. A lot. There is no Anglo-style war of the sexes going on. French men and women actually want to be together. They enjoy their mutual company. They spar. They debate. They flirt. They seek out one another's company in a multiplicity of social settings. Anyone who's dined with the French will be struck by the boy-girl-boy-girl seating arrangements imposed by the host or hostess. This is more than simply stuffy protocol, of which the French are, of course, connoisseurs.

The Ubiquity of Anglo Homosociality

Anglo homo-sociality is so all-pervasive as to be ‘transparent’. Like air, it is everywhere, but we have ceased to notice it. The phenomenological philosophical school offers a profound explanation of this phenomenon, which can greatly enrich our understanding of the Anglobitch situation/disaster currently engulfing the Anglosphere. A good example of a ‘transparency process’ cited by German philosopher Martin Heidegger is learning to drive.

At first, the basic elements of driving present a huge obstacle to the learner. Steering, changing gears and using the indicators are all, initially, onerous tasks requiring considerable effort. As the learner progresses, familiarity with these tasks renders them ‘transparent’. They become so intimately enmeshed in our conscious being that we cease to ‘notice’ them. Heidegger also cites professional athletes whose mastery of ball or racquet reveals an absolute intimacy with items outside their own bodies: in short, the ball or racquet has become totally ‘transparent’. In some respects, this profound philosophy echoes the ideas of Antonio Gramsci: that an all pervasive hegemony rules every complex society, proving its framework of ‘common-sense’.

Of course, in time any hegemony will become ‘transparent’, just as driving becomes transparent. Sheer familiarity makes it so. Only when we step outside our own hegemony or venture into another do we truly perceive our own hegemonic indoctrination. What we considered ‘self-evident’ is revealed as entirely arbitrary, but one lifestyle among many.

In a general sense, these concepts have much to offer the pan-Anglosphere Men’s Movement. Male expendability, Princess Syndrome, hypergamy, misandry – all have become ‘transparent’ in the Anglosphere, hegemonic features so embedded by non-linear socio-cultural feedbacks that we no longer ‘notice’ them – they are, in short, ‘transparent’ (to borrow Heidegger’s concept). When millions of dollars of dollars are spent finding some white, middle class Anglobitch who trips on a woodpile, and the media mourn her with days of airtime, we no longer notice it. Absurdly preferential treatment for the Anglobitch has become ‘common sense’, a ‘transparent’ reflex. Indeed, the practical essence of the Anglobitch thesis involves exposing these ‘transparent’ assumptions and repudiating them. For example, the assumption that only males initiate domestic violence is another potent ‘transparent’ hegemonic assumption across the Anglosphere - and demonstrably wrong.

'Game' Reconsidered

The PUA/Game subculture reflects the homosocial nature of Anglo-Saxon culture. Features like ‘chick crack’ – wherein PUAs carefully study characteristic ‘female’ preoccupations like astrology, healing crystals, palmistry and tarot cards – are implicitly rooted in a severe homosocial distinction between the sexes. Indeed, it could be rightly said that ‘Game’ largely involves teaching men how women think, in a culture where the sexes are severely divided in psycho-sexual terms. This is why Game is primarily an Anglo-Saxon phenomenon, and has its strongest proponents in the United States – the most implicitly homosocial and puritanical nation in the Anglosphere. Of course, being largely unaware of the Anglobitch Thesis, most PUA/Game experts are blind to the culturally-specific nature of their enterprise. Game developed to ‘bridge’ the sharp gender-divide in Anglo societies, allowing men to seduce women by teaching them female response patterns - much as hunters have to learn the migratory and behavioural patterns of their prey. In non-Anglo societies, the need for ‘chick crack’ and other PUA strategies is obviated by the fact that the sexes enjoy a far greater measure of existential overlap outside the Anglosphere.

The Dangers of Homosociality

A tragic tale indicative of the cultural specificity of Anglo-Saxon homosociality is that of Celine Figard. This young French student evidently expected to hitch-hike across Britain with impunity, and was briskly raped and murdered by a British trucker for her pains. She reckoned without the class-based homosociality prevailing in Britain, which has no direct analogue in her native France. This generally ensures that low-status males grow up with a pronounced sense of sexual disenfranchisement and grievance, especially in relation to young, attractive women. Figard was entirely unaware of this murderous working-class sexual rage, perhaps viewing the trucker as a helpful father-figure (as she might in her homeland). She found out that the Anglosphere is very different – that working class Anglo-Saxon males view attractive girls as unattainable sexual prey, not ‘friends’ or daughter surrogates. These Anglo feelings of homosocial, class-based rage explain why some of the most renowned sex-murderers in history are working-class English males: indeed, beginning with Jack the Ripper and Herman Mudgett, the serial sex-killer is largely an Anglo-Saxon phenomenon.

Wednesday, 17 February 2010

Many leftist Americans are enamored of Britain's elaborate Welfare State, particularly its NHS (National Health Service). However, while British men provide the taxes to sustain this vast cornucopia of public resources, all evidence indicates that women are its primary beneficiaries. The following article describes a single mother who makes six figures and lives in a mansion - all without raising a finger. As ever in the pan-Anglosphere matriarchy, women are set on pedestals above reproof or criticism, while men - the eternal stooges in this sordid melodrama - foot the bill. In Britain, 99% of those living on the streets are men. Women invariably get the best public housing, healthcare and other resources. These 'State Brides' are not holding out for some White Knight alpha male to solve their self-made problems - the pliant, misandrist pan-Anglosphere state (funded by the taxpayer's infinite largesse) does that every time. Let American men beware - Obama's reforms won't help you one jot. Big State government in the anglosphere serves only one constituency: women.

Why else do you think so many women voted for him?

BRITAIN’S benefits shambles was exposed last night by the case of a mother-of-six who receives £7,000 a month of taxpayers’ cash to live in a £2million mansion. Critics hit out at the Government for overseeing a system that entitles jobless Essma Marjan to claim almost £100,000 a year in housing benefit and other free handouts. The money allows her to live in a plush five-bedroom villa in a desirable part of London, close to the home of Sir Paul McCartney.

The 34-year-old single mother says she was forced to move after the birth of her five-month-old son meant her previous home was too small for her growing brood. She even moaned: “The house is lovely and very big but I don’t have enough furniture to fill it.”

Yesterday, outraged politicians called for an overhaul of the system which allows Miss Marjan to legitimately claim £1,600-a-week in housing benefit, adding up to £84,000 a year. She also receives an estimated £15,000 a year in other payouts, including child benefit. Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary Theresa May said: “We cannot go on with a situation where families on housing benefits live in million-pound mansions.

“We plan to review the whole system to make sure it is fair. Families on benefits should not be able to live in houses that people in work and not on benefits can’t afford.”

Matthew Elliott, chief executive of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, said: “This is a huge bill, which is clearly excessive. The current rules put councils in the impossible situation of having to pay for houses chosen by the claimant, even if they cost an absolute fortune. Of course people shouldn’t be left without a home but there are plenty of better value houses. This is costly for taxpayers and deprives other people of much needed assistance.”

London-born Miss Marjan found the house in Maida Vale, north-west London, herself on the internet and rented it through a private letting agency, rather than wait for Westminster City Council to give her a vacant property on its books. She then applied to the council for £1,600-a-week in housing benefit, the maximum allowed. She shares the property with her six children, Zekia, 14, Abdulhakim, 13, Jehad, 11, Hamza, ten, and Ayman, two, and Nasir, five months.

Her first four children were fathered by London-born tiler Clint Benjamin and the last two by Pakistani lawyer Arfan Razaq. She has split from both. Describing her good fortune, Miss Marjan said: “I moved here at the beginning of the month as I’m entitled to a five-bedroom house. I was in a three-bedroom council house but I needed a bigger place once my new baby came along. So the council agreed to pay the £1,600 a week to a private landlord as they didn’t have any houses big enough.”

The four-storey house boasts five bedrooms, two bathrooms, a double living room, and a large fitted kitchen-diner with French doors leading on to a landscaped garden. The family also has two flat-screen televisions and several leather sofas, while the wooden floorboards are scattered with her children’s toys.

Westminster City Councillor Melvyn Caplan said: “The whole system is entirely wrong and people should not be able to choose where they live and the Government then have to pay that amount. It is totally unfair. We’ve been calling for some time for the Government to reform this.”

His fellow councillor Phillipa Roe added: “The Government has repeatedly pledged to reform housing benefit but failed to do so. The whole system needs a radical review and ministers should stop dragging their heels and get on and do it.”

A neighbour of Miss Marjan said: “If she has managed to find a loophole in the system that allows her to live here when there are thousands of other people close to the poverty line then it is ridiculous. It’s unfair to other people who have worked hard for their money.”

The exorbitant benefit claims are possible under Labour’s controversial Local Housing Allowance, which enables council tenants to rent property from private landlords and apply for benefit. The rates range from a single room in a shared house up to properties with five bedrooms and the benefits paid out are based on rental figures for the area. The maximum amount is set by central government.

Other recent benefits scandals include a single mother of eight who claimed £90,000 a year to live in a £2.6million mansion in Notting Hill, west London. In total, 16 families are living in million-pound-plus London properties funded by the LHA.

Monday, 15 February 2010

This is how the law now treats female criminals in the United States, the world's premier nation. A young female murders her brother by shooting him in the chest, is released on a whim of the Police without any punishment, takes up a professorial role in a university without her crime being considered and then murders three of her colleagues in cold blood...! Will someone tell me I'm dreaming? How can anyone in their right mind seriously question that the Anglosphere is a misandrist matriarchy where male life is accorded no value?

An Alabama university professor accused of fatally shooting three colleagues at a faculty meeting this week shot her younger brother dead at their home in the Boston suburbs more than 20 years ago, but records of it are missing, police said Saturday.

Amy Bishop shot her brother in the chest in 1986, Chief Paul Frazier of the Braintree, Mass., police said at a news conference. She fired at least three shots, hitting her brother once and hitting her bedroom wall, before police took her into custody at gunpoint, he said.

Before Bishop could be booked, however, the police chief back then called officers and told them to release her to her mother, Frazier said. The shooting of the brother, Seth Bishop, was logged as an accident, but detailed records of the shooting have disappeared, he said.

"The report's gone, removed from the files," he said. He said people who worked for the police department then remember the shooting and he planned to meet with the district attorney over the possibility of launching a criminal investigation into the report's disappearance.

The former police chief, John Polio, said Saturday in an interview at his home that he was astonished at any allegation of a coverup. He said he didn't call officers to tell them to release Bishop. "There's no coverup, no missing records," he proclaimed.

A University of Alabama at Huntsville spokesman said Bishop, 42, had been denied tenure before she was held Friday in the campus shooting.

As Bishop was being taken to jail in handcuffs she said: "It didn't happen. There's no way."

Attempts by The Associated Press to track down addresses and phone numbers for Bishop's family in the Braintree area weren't immediately successful Saturday. The current police chief said he believed her family had moved away.